Three deputy defence ministers of Ukraine were sacked in Kiev because of their refusal to participate in the formation of a plan that requires the use of the armed forces to take control of some areas in the eastern and south-eastern areas of the country. Also, some Ukrainian units stationed there were disarmed because they supported the Crimean parliament.
This is a close-up model of the army’s discipline towards the political events affecting their country and which are related to the will of its peoples and their desire for change and, even if these ministers did the opposite, the events in Crimea would still have been very bloody and would have established a complex towards the Ukrainian army units stationed in the city, as well as other cities.
In the context of the people’s experiences, the state government did not succeed in keeping its status amongst its people after using the army against the people, no matter how long they restrict the people’s freedom and will. Experience has proven that these nations, with the first relaxation of the military’s grip, overthrew these governments, but did so with much bloodshed that it remained in the conscience and history of these countries and cannot easily be erased.
In our national Arab records, we find that most of the people are greatly sympathetic with the members of the armed forces, much more than with the police and internal security forces. This is due to the fact that the Arab armed forces are rarely used to break up or disperse demonstrations and sit-ins, nor are they present on the streets during the activities of the Arab liberation movements in the middle of the last century; it was the internal security forces who dealt with these matters, and therefore it is them who clash with the people.
In the beginning of 2011, some popular movements emerged in some Arab countries which resulted in the success of two great peaceful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. It was by means of the role played by the army in the two revolutions and the style used to preserve them that we identified the reasons behind the success of the Tunisian revolution and the lagging of Egypt’s revolution.
The Tunisian army remained displaced by the country’s constitution, which made it the protector of the constitution and legitimacy, and when the people took to the streets to call for change, the army leaders realised that the only option to preserve legitimacy is to demand the president leave the country to prevent the introduction of security chaos. By doing so, the Tunisian army eliminated the main source of popular outrage, as it removed the president who the people were demanding the removal of, making the army’s presence in the Tunisian squares welcomed and there was no tension from any party.
The Tunisian army was also more professional and committed to its constitutional behaviour when it respected the people’s will in choosing its parliamentarians and then its president. The army did not get involved in the arguments that occurred on either side, and the Tunisian parties eventually reached the point of safety, making their model of revolution a global beacon for all, signifying the people’s awareness and will to achieve dignity.
As for Egypt, the scene was not as transparent and clear, as the former Egyptian president upon the army during the last stages of the revolution because he knew it was his last card left to play, and most likely a losing card because the army leaders at the time knew the limits of their constitutional relationship with the people. Their presence in the sit-ins staged in the squares and around the presidential palace was symbolic, and the demonstrators gave them garlands and took souvenir pictures with them.
After the people passed the historic test and took the first steps towards democracy by holding transparent parliamentary elections that led to changes in the judicial, administrative and military formations in order to find the right team to lead the country, far from the past legacy full of corruption, many parties worked to abort this democratic change in Egypt. The leadership of the Egyptian army was behind all of these parties and took advantage of the mass popular activity on June 30, 2013, to impose absolute administration of the country and declare a state of emergency that was even fiercer than Mubarak’s.
The view of the military units stationed in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities became a common sight, but it the uncommon sight was these units opening fire on the opponents of military rule, turning Cairo and major cities to guerrilla war battlefields.
It also turned the finest units of the great Egyptian army who were established to fight a strong external enemy into weak units standing at the entrances and exits of roads and squares in Egypt, seen by many Egyptians as a burden on their freedom and security, especially after these units became a source of provocation to those subjected to prosecution and political and security harassment, especially members of the many Islamic currents in Egypt.
In Iraq, which has a long history of involving its national army, the prime minister, responsible for the internal and defence portfolios involved the army in the country’s internal conflicts to eliminate all opponents and intimidate others.
I will not recount all of new Iraq’s experiences in regards to the involvement of the army to face the people and will only focus on what is happening now in the Anbar province. The army’s path has been changed from fighting the members of the Islamic state organisation in Iraq and the Levant in this province’s desert to fighting its cities which oppose the ruling style and monopoly of authority. By doing so, the army is violating the constitution, which says, “The army cannot be used in internal conflicts and cannot enter the cities.”
Before this, the army was used, and continues to oppress and kill demonstrators in Baghdad and then in Hawija and Fallujah, which also violates another constitutional clause which says: “The Iraqi army is the protector of the country’s administrative borders and does not interfere in internal affairs and political differences.”
The army’s purpose is to protect the country from external attacks and provide security to the community, not to protect the leader himself. This is the main difference between security and community chaos and between the proper and smooth transition of authority, as in the case of Tunisia and in the case of Egypt prior to June 30 of last year.
However, if the rulers and military leaders believe they are above the will of the people, they will lose all legitimacy and morality, as the people give up their right to the use of force to the state in order to protect all its members, but if these governments or military rulers lose this authorisation, then they will no longer have the legitimacy needed to exercise any force.
I recall the words of scientist Charles Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives, but rather the one most adaptable to change.” Therefore, we must evolve and adapt to today’s world, as, given our people’s increased awareness and communication with the world, they are no longer captive to one media or one inspiration. They cannot be scared away from their will by brutally opening fire on them, as is the case in Egypt and Iraq, but, instead, through the development of our armed forces and linking these forces to a strong Arab government that establishes national security as an impenetrable force, leaving the internal affairs to the rulers and their internal security forces.
If the rulers fail to satisfy the people and maintain their security, they lose their legitimacy, and will fall with the respect of the people and the armed forces.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.